Peer learning of innovation agencies

Horizon 2020 call Innosup-5-2014/2015

Agnieszka StasiakowskaEASME A2 SME

• To deliver better innovation support to SMEs

• INNO-Partnering Forum (IPF 2009-2012) to develop and test new methods of peer learning among innovation agencies:

- Peer review (including with international peers)

- Twinning (transfer of practices)

- Quality management in innovation agencies

Why peer learning for innovation agencies?

Conclusion:

• "Learning instrument have to be demand-led and be availbale when 'windows ofopportunity' are open"

• Standardisation of methods for fast replication – available for all outside a 'project'

INNO-Partnering Forum

• to support collaboration between Innovation Agencies following two methodologies:

• Twinning advanced (50,000€)

• EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management)-Framework for innovation agencies (15,000€)

• Exploratory approach: peer learning supported through lump-sums

How to support peer-learning of innovation agencies?

Any entity that is designing or delivering innovation support programmes to SME can participate in peer learning for innovation agency, i.e.:

Innovation agencies, ministries, 'programme offices', 'ESIF managingauthorities, incubators, technology parks, knowledge transferoffices….

a prove should be provided that applicants areentrusted by relevant authorities at national, regional or local level to design and/or deliver SME innovation support programmes,i.e:

Excerpt from a mission statement,, letter from the public authority

Who is eligible?

Timeline & budget

Open call with 5 cut-off dates:

14/11/2014

12/02/2015

14/05/2015

14/07/2015

14/10/2015

• 5-7 projects to be financed at cut-off date

• Lump-sums of EUR 50.000 or EUR 15.000 covering 100% of the costs of the projects

• Total budget available 2014-2015: EUR 1,42 million

Twinning advanced (T+)An area of challenge in SME support that is shared among several agencies having experience in addressing similar challenges

A group of agencies is interested in addressing the challenge(s) together as peers based on their respective experience base

Together the agencies develop a Design Options Paper based on a mutual design work and some optional pilot exercises. The DOP outlines and details how better practices could be developed.

Joint or individual design of new and better practices based on the DOP

Twinning advanced (T+)

• At least 3 innovation agencies find each other and identify the shared challenge in SME innovationsupport (� Cordis partnering group or other means)

• They jointly apply describing the challenge and how they intend to work on the DOP ('Project's work package')

• Only deliverable : 'The design options paper'(Which should be made public)

• Anything related to the design and delivery of innovationsupport to SMEs

'designing special support for specific needs (What to support? Whichdelivery mechanism [grant, loan, services, tax credits etc])'

'increasing efficiency of delivery mechanisms (How to do it better? [betteruse of IT tools, speciifc marketing, identifying the right candidates, evaluating proposals]

• Preferrence for topics that are new, prevailing and have a clear focus

• Weak topics are those for which reference material isabundant

T+ What 'challenges' (topics) would be supported?

T+ Working on the Design Options Paper

The (short) workprogramme – part ofthe proposal – describes in which way the DOP isdeveloped. � Convince us

that you do it right!!

Design Option Paper

Peer review visit

Joint workshop

Joint workshop

EFQM framework for Innovation Agencies – how it can be used?

• A structure to define and implement a consistent qualitymanagement strategy

• A tool for self-assessment, by measuring how the organisationis performing, and helping to understand the gaps towardsexcellence in managing the implementation of strategy.

• As a tool for external assessment, e.g., for a group ofagencies willing to start a joint learning and benchmarkingprocess based on reciprocal assessments

In particular, the Framework is intended to help the agencies to get started with an assessment process that can be continued for a number of years and to identify and share good practices with peers.

Do we need another management system?

Different QM systems and processes: ISO, Lean, SixSigma, TQM, Balance scorecards, satisfaction survey…

• EFQM Model integrates all initiatives, providing a holistic approachto business excellence

• It helps to better understand, implement and communicate yourvision

• It helps to identify current strengths, areas for improvement andactions driving your results

• Is pragmatic and practical: developed with & for organisations

• Is NOT prescriptive: you choose what is relevant for you

Model: EFQM Quality Assessment project• A 2-day workshop with management staff of the assessed

agency

o Facilitation by an EFQM lead assessor with use of simple assessment tools

o Creation of a self-assessment report following a specific methodology

• A 1.5 day training with 2 peer assessors from other agencies

o Familiarising with assessment techniques and the case of the assessed agency (self-assessment report)

• Assessment of the innovation agency

o Committed to Excellence assessment performed by the 2 peer assessors with the supervision of the EFQM lead assessor

• Good practices gathering using the RADAR methodology

2 methodologies offered1 methodology per proposal

Twinning advanced EFQM Framework

Lump sum EUR 50.000 Lump sum EUR 15.000

Deliverable: jointly drafted ‘Design Options Paper’

Deliverable: Self-assessmentreport and recommendations from External assessment

Lump sums

• Proposal stage : No detailed costs declarations

• End of project: No invoices, No timesheets required. Budget execution evaluated based on the delivery of the finaldeliverable.

• If Audit: Yes invoices required! Standard accounting rulesapply

• 5 cut-offs

• On-line submission via participant portal

• Short 10 pages proposal template

• One innovation agency can participate in several projects

• More than 2 participating agencies per proposal.

It makes a much more convincing proposal at European

level to demonstrate European value-added with a group of peer innovation agencies from other countries.

• International partners admitted for funding:• Automatically: developping countries

• All other countries: Exceptionally if their participation is deemed essential for carrying out the project (BRICs etc..)

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/3cpart/h2020-hi-3cpart_en.pdf

Submission

Evaluation

• Remote evaluation

• Criteria: Excellence, Impact, Implementation

• Same weights for evaluation criteria, threshold per criteria 3/5, overall threshold 10/15

• No negotiation of Grant Agreement - Consequence for evaluation:

- The proposal is evaluated as submitted

- You receive feedback but no recommendations

- Any proposal with scores above the thresholds and for which there is sufficient budget will be selected as submitted

Evaluation: EXCELLENCE

Excellence of your concept and approach

• Clarity and pertinence of the objectives;

• Credibility of the proposed approach;

• Soundness of the concept;

• Extent that proposed work is ambitious

Evaluation: IMPACT

• Impact on the agencies' community through the development, dissemination and use of project results,

• Impact on SMEs

• Contribution to expected impacts from the Work Programme:

• Increase in number of innovation agencies engaged in peer learning and adopting the results of peer learning

• A broad range of new topics and approaches in support to SMEs

• Wider use of quality management enhancing service and customer satisfaction

• Measures to achieve impact:- Effectiveness of dissemination and communication activities

Evaluation: IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation: Potential to achieve the envisaged deliverable

• Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources

• Complementarity of the participants within the consortium

• Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk management

Convince evaluators that you will make it!!

Granting

• No negotiation

• Max 3 months after evaluation results

• Pre-financing: An advance payment of 50% of the lump sum can be requested (45%+5% retained by the guarantee fund)

• Is sub-contracting possible?

• Yes, but it is not possible to subcontract 'core elements':

- Not: employing a consultant to draft the DOP based on interviews withexperts (lack of peer-learning aspect)

- Yes: Employing a professional moderator to animate the peer learningamong the participants, taking minutes, summarising the event

Partner search

Dedicated CORDIS group:

https://cordis.europa.eu/partners/group/peer-learning-for-innovation-agencies

-Blog with latest news-Partner search-Depository of documents

• EASME websitehttp://ec.europa.eu/easme/innovation-agencies_en.htm

• Participant portal

Contact:

ESME: agnieszka.stasiakowska@ec.europa.eu

DG RTD: mireille.busson@ec.europa.eu

For EFQM Framework: gianluca.mule@efqm.org

More information at: